[Smart Grid Market Research] Coal: Closer Look at CCS (Part 3 of 3), May 2012


Published on

Carbon Capture and Sequestration (CCS) is the process by which carbon dioxide is captured from coal fired power plants and stored in either underground, offshore (below the ocean bed) or in mineral deposits, thus preventing it from being released into the air. The process involves three stages: (1) capture of CO2 at point sources (such as power plants) and compression of the gas, (2) transportation through pipelines and (3) sequestration (geological, marine, or mineral). Although long-term costs associated with CCS may be cost-competitive (as indicated in the chart it Part 2), within each part of the process, different technologies exist with varying costs based on their level of development and maturity, elaborated below. CCS is an emerging technology which has still uncertain costs. While feasibility studies and pilot projects have been undertaken, large-scale commercial demonstration projects have not yet been carried out, although some are in planning stages. Cost uncertainty also exists around site-specific variability.

Published in: Technology
1 Like
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

[Smart Grid Market Research] Coal: Closer Look at CCS (Part 3 of 3), May 2012

  1. 1. Learn more @ www.zpryme.com | www.smartgridresearch.orgMay 2012 Coal: Closer Look at CCS Zpryme Smart Grid Insights Presents a Special Report Series (Part 3 of 3): Copyright © 2012 Zpryme Research & Consulting, LLC All rights reserved.
  2. 2. Special Report Series | Coal: Closer Look at CCS (Part 3 of 3) “We have a responsibility and a golden opportunity to act, energy-related CO2 emissions are at historic highs; under current policies, we estimate that energy use and CO2 emissions would increase by a third by 2020, and almost double by 2050. This would likely send global temperatures at least 6°C higher. Such an outcome would confront future generations with significant economic, environmental and energy security hardships - a legacy that I know none of us wishes to leave behind.” 1 www.zpryme.com | www.smartgridresearch.org Zpryme Smart Grid Insights | May 2012 Copyright © 2012 Zpryme Research & Consulting, LLC All rights reserved.Source: Richard H. Jones, IEA deputy executive director ambassador, April 2012
  3. 3. Special Report Series | Coal: Closer Look at CCS (Part 3 of 3)Table of ContentsCCS: In Brief.......................................................................... 3CCS: Regulatory & Legal Issues ........................................ 4 United States .................................................................... 4 Globally ............................................................................. 4CCS: Economics of Transportation .................................. 5 United States .................................................................... 5 Globally ............................................................................. 5CCS: Environmental Policy Concerns ............................. 6 United States: ................................................................... 6 Globally: ............................................................................ 6CCS: The Next Generation Work force ........................... 6CCS: Capture ...................................................................... 7CCS: Sequestration ............................................................. 8CCS: Current Projects ......................................................... 8 United States: ................................................................... 8 Globally: ............................................................................ 9CCS: Bottom Line .............................................................. 10Q&A: Dr. Raymond L. Orbach, Energy Institute,University of Texas at Austin ............................................ 112 www.zpryme.com | www.smartgridresearch.org Zpryme Smart Grid Insights | May 2012Copyright © 2012 Zpryme Research & Consulting, LLC All rights reserved.
  4. 4. Special Report Series | Coal: Closer Look at CCS (Part 3 of 3)CCS: In Brief Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy have encouraged further CCS deployment and development.Carbon Capture and Sequestration (CCS) is the process Research and development has focused on advancedby which carbon dioxide is captured from coal fired technology programs such as coal to liquid technology,power plants and stored in either underground, offshore hydrogen turbines, advanced combustion, gasification(below the ocean bed) or in mineral deposits, thus technology, underground coal gasification, solid oxidepreventing it from being released into the air. The process fuel cells, and hydrogen from coal technologies. Ininvolves three stages: addition, new regulatory emission standards as natural gas facilities for coal-fired utility plants, as well as the (1) Capture of CO2 at point sources (such as power governmental dedication to furthering the CCS field has plants) and compression of the gas, solidified the nation’s commitment to further development (2) Transportation through pipelines and of the Carbon Capture and Sequestration field. (3) Sequestration (geological, marine, or mineral) Globally:Although long-term costs associated with CCS may becost-competitive within each part of the process, different Carbon Capture and Sequestration (CCS) was discussedtechnologies exist with varying costs based on their level of at mandatory at COP-17 in Durban, South Africa todevelopment and maturity, elaborated below. CCS is an reduce worldwide emission standards, especially inemerging technology which has still uncertain costs. While developing countries like China and India. CCS will nowfeasibility studies and pilot projects have been be eligible for carbon credits under the Cleanundertaken, large-scale commercial demonstration Development Mechanism, a program funded byprojects have not yet been carried out, although some developed countries to offset emissions in developingare in planning stages. Cost uncertainty also exists around countries. However, this proclamation comes at a timesite-specific variability. when more CCS pilots are closing, rather than opening.United States: In October, the Swedish utility Vattenfall has cancelled the proposed $2 billion CCS pilot project in Germany due toThe United States currently has the largest number of concerns about environmental safety, as well as problemslarge-scale CCS projects and the largest number of fully- with the regulatory framework. Another proposed $1.5operational projects worldwide, 25 out of 74 current and billion pilot in Scotland through Scottish power was alsopotential projects in 2011 (Global CCS Institute). Funding canceled due to project costs.i The Schwarze Project infrom sources such as the Department of Energy, the the EU was also closed December 5.National Energy Technology Laboratory, and the3 www.zpryme.com | www.smartgridresearch.org Zpryme Smart Grid Insights | May 2012Copyright © 2012 Zpryme Research & Consulting, LLC All rights reserved.
  5. 5. Special Report Series | Coal: Closer Look at CCS (Part 3 of 3)CCS: Regulatory & Legal Issues much of the CCS regulation is performed on the provincial level. Most of the CCS projects are operating in Alberta where several provincial regulatory boards oversee CCSUnited States: operations, and laws such as the Alberta Climate Change and Emissions Act explicitly mention CCS, while the CCSIn the United States on the federal level, the majority of Act establishes long term liability. In addition, Albertaregulation on CCS coal production lies with the announced it would be conducting a regulatoryEnvironmental Protection Agency. The Clean Air Act framework assessment to be sure the CCS projects wouldplaces the health of the general public as a priority and be operated in the safest way possible.requires the EPA to develop and enforce regulations toprevent exposure to airborne contaminants. In January The EU has issued a number of directives that are2011, it was expanded to include Greenhouse Gases, developed to govern Carbon Dioxide storage, integratedincluding Carbon Dioxide, and the EPA began issuing pollution prevention, and Carbon Dioxide transportation.permits to control Greenhouse Gases. Many states have Once the directives were established, the member statesinternal regulations that govern the release of greenhouse have a period of time to modify the directives and institutegases including carbon dioxide, including California and them as laws in their area. However, a lack of regulationOregon who regulate greenhouse gases produced by in areas such as Germany has halted pending CCScoal-fired plants, while other states, such as Illinois and projects, even in advanced stages of regulation. TheMontana require CCS to be used by coal- fired plants in Netherlands are also facing a number of regulatorytheir states. In March 2012, the EPA proposed the first challenges, as laws have not been significantly modifiedNational Carbon pollution standards for the nation, where to allow for successful sequestration. In the UK, it isall new plants would be held to emission standards. expected that most of the carbon storage will be offshore, so most of the laws that govern CCS are in regards toGlobally: offshore storage. The Energy Bill and the Energy Act establish a regulatory framework for CCS projects withCanada has a well-developed regulatory framework for focus on offshore storage. In addition, the Energy Actexisting oil and gas regulations and has been adapting builds on the Petroleum Act of 1998 and the Electricity Actthem to CCS. In addition, Natural Resources Canada and of 1989 and would now require that all new large coalthe Department of the Environment provide additional fired plants demonstrate capture readiness. Norwayregulations. CEPA has classified Carbon Dioxide as a toxin primarily regulates the permits assigned to CCS projectsand had regulations such as the Reduction of Carbon because carbon dioxide has been classified as aDioxide Emissions from coal Fired Generation of Electricity pollutant. In addition, the Norwegian Greenhouse GasRegulations as well as developed emissions performance Emission Trading Act established establishes limits onstandards to govern it on the federal level. However, greenhouse gas emissions, further regulating the field.4 www.zpryme.com | www.smartgridresearch.org Zpryme Smart Grid Insights | May 2012Copyright © 2012 Zpryme Research & Consulting, LLC All rights reserved.
  6. 6. Special Report Series | Coal: Closer Look at CCS (Part 3 of 3) Australia has a very well developed framework for CSS United States:governance with six key areas of focus: certificationprocesses, property rights, monitoring, long-term liability, There are existing CO2 pipelines in the US today of 2500kmfinancial issues, and incentivisation. Dating back as far as that transport 50 million metric tons of CO2 annually.12006, the subsequent laws govern both the onshore and Transportation costs range from $1 to $5 per ton of CO2offshore storage of greenhouse gases, and processing of transported 250 km, contingent upon the pipeline’s flowcoal fired plants. rate.2China has established CCS as a priority, especially Globally:considering that coal is the main form of electricitygeneration for the country, which opens on average one In Europe and Asia, there are established pipelines in thenew coal fired plant a week. However, the country is in interior of the continent. A complex infrastructurethe developing stages of CCS use and technology, thus transports carbon dioxide from processing locations tolacking significant regulations in the field. storage facilities or to transport vessels for offshore deposition. In the future, it is likely this system will evolve toCCS: Economics of Transportation form clusters, which will then utilize feeder pipelines to for larger networks, thus increasing the efficiency and decreasing the cost of transportation. In addition,Transportation of captured CO2 is mainly done through advanced shipping systems are being developed forpipelines; however, shipping is an alternative transport offshore storage, which is prevalent in countries like themethod; both processes are technologically mature United Kingdom, the Netherlands and Norway. Intoday. Rotterdam, rail systems transport the processed carbon dioxide to large vessels which then transport the gas toThe cost structure for the transportation phase is almost offshore facilities. As technology advances, these vesselsentirely associated with fixed infrastructure i.e. construction become larger and have integrated online injectioncosts (materials, equipment, installation, labor). Operation facilities to allow for ease in storing the carbon dioxide inand maintenance costs are a relatively small portion of offshore facilities. In addition, utilizing cargo ships allowsthe investment in transportation. The cost is mostly a for changes in storage location and offers increasedfunction of distance – and transport onshore is less flexibility. As the integrated hub approach to storage andexpensive than transporting to an offshore destination. Ineither case shipments are subject to regulatory filing fees,insurance costs, right-of-way costs, and contingencies 1www.mckinseyquarterly.com/wrapper.aspx?ar=2247&story=true&url=http%3a%2f%2fwww.mc kinseyquarterly.com%2fWhat_is_carbon_capture_and_storage_2247%3fpagenum%3d1%23intallowances. eractive_carbon_capture&pgn=whis08_exhibit 2 fiesta.bren.ucsb.edu/~kolstad/HmPg/papers/CCS%20Costs%20Latrobe.pdf5 www.zpryme.com | www.smartgridresearch.org Zpryme Smart Grid Insights | May 2012Copyright © 2012 Zpryme Research & Consulting, LLC All rights reserved.
  7. 7. Special Report Series | Coal: Closer Look at CCS (Part 3 of 3)the integrated carrier options are more fully developed, an earlier development phase, such as China and India.worldwide transport of carbon dioxide will become more Many areas have absolutely no regulation in place, suchefficient and affordable. as Malaysia and India. However, the EU has created programs where more developed nations are able toCCS: Environmental Policy Concerns invest in these lesser developed counterparts to allow for faster utilization of clean coal technology. To be truly successful, more uniform standards need to be developedUnited States: across the world that establishes emissions standards, especially in the newly constructed plants in places likeOf key concern in the United States are the newly China. A collaboration of countries, as demonstrated inannounced environmental policy regulations. 106 coal United States and China joint ventures will allow China toplants are predicted to close since 2010 due to the cost of take advantage of the more developed technology ofenvironmental improvements. While these standards are that in the United States.beneficial for the overall environment, they are costprohibitive in many cases. Other concerns have beenexpressed by environmental groups about the effects of CCS: The Next Generation Work forceCCS technology. Greenpeace has launched a “Coal isDirty” campaign where it explains its position that events There are several workforce concerns as new CCSsuch as the spill of coal ash sludge in December 2011 in technology is employed. The industry has evolved fromTennessee and carbon dioxide leaks from naturally fairly straight forward coal burning facilities, to employingsequestered sites and their damage to the surrounding very advanced laboratories where coal is burned inenvironment should be closely monitored. Clearly both oxygen rich environment to allow for the mostsides of the issue have very differing opinions and the concentrated form of carbon dioxide to be removed. Theenvironmental policy decisions of the United States must skill level of operators to run these facilities has alsoexamine both the past and potential failures of current increased with these changes. In addition, the number ofpolicies, as well as its effect on the coal industry as a workers will shift, from many lower skilled positions, to fewerwhole in the future. highly skilled positions. However, as these plants grow with the new technologies, the number of highly skilled workersGlobally: is likely to grow. To be able to meet these challenges, the coal industry has to offer skill advancement opportunities,Globally the focus on environmental policy is of a different where they can groom the workforce to meet thefocus. The environmental standards of Europe are more changing needs. In addition, several universities, such asstringent than those of the United States, but it also the University of California San Diego offer advancedunderstands the impact of their close neighbors that are in environment technology programs, where engineering6 www.zpryme.com | www.smartgridresearch.org Zpryme Smart Grid Insights | May 2012Copyright © 2012 Zpryme Research & Consulting, LLC All rights reserved.
  8. 8. Special Report Series | Coal: Closer Look at CCS (Part 3 of 3)students are able to design cleaner technologies to guide A study completed by the International Energy Agencyclean energy in the future. The education these students (IEA) in 2011 studying 50 CO2 capture installations at powerobtain is priceless and can provide leaders for the future plants found the capital cost and levelized cost of energydevelopment of CCS, as well as develop better and safer is approximately $105 per megawatt hour for coal-firedstorage and/or utilization opportunities for carbon dioxide. plants. On average, the cost of CO2 avoided is $55 per tonThe industry must become more forward looking, spurring of CO2 (using a pulverize coal plant without CCS as atheir own innovation instead of being controlled by reference point).5 The overnight costs of power plants withstronger standards. The future is guaranteed to hold CCS in the OECD regions are $3,800 per kilowatt hour,higher emissions requirements. By looking to employ better approximately 74% higher than plants without capturesolutions now, instead of being affected by changing technology.6 It was also found that none of the capturerequirements, the industry can thrive and lead the way to technologies outperformed any of the others in cost anda more carbon-free coal future. To do that, it must performance.employ the highest skilled workers possible, and transmit itsemployees with this knowledge, thus being able to The same 2011 IEA study identified post-combustion CO2develop, construct, operate and maintain future coal capture as to be the most researched and cost-effectivetechnology. option for gas-fired plants. The capital cost and levelized cost of energy is $102 per megawatt hour and the costs ofCCS: Capture CO2 avoided are $80 per ton of CO2 (using a natural gas combined cycle as a comparison). In this case, overnightCapturing CO2 emissions from the point source has the costs are $1,700 per kilowatt hour; 82% higher than plantshighest associated costs of CCS; representing 70 percent without capture technology. On average, these costs areof the total cost.3 These costs include the compression of higher in OECD countries, and cheaper in countries likecarbon dioxide for transport to the storage site. Capture China.can take place pre-combustion, post-combustion or byOxyfuel combustion (only the latter two will work for Available technology allows 85-95% of the CO2 producedretrofitting). For the capture phase, industrial separation to be captured. However, CCS use does impose anand combustion techniques such as CO2 scrubbers and energy penalty, requiring 10-40% additional energy (forOxyfuel are relatively mature, while technology such as air Natural Gas Combined Cycle plants, Pulverized Coalcapture is primarily in a research phase.4 plants, Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle plants) to store the captured CO2 than a non-CCS plant.7 5 www.iea.org/papers/2011/costperf_ccs_powergen.pdf3 /tmp/PreviewPasteboardItems/Costs of CCS Wiki Page (dragged).pdf 6 Ibid.4 www.ipcc.ch/pdf/special-reports/srccs/srccs_summaryforpolicymakers.pdf 7 Ibid.7 www.zpryme.com | www.smartgridresearch.org Zpryme Smart Grid Insights | May 2012Copyright © 2012 Zpryme Research & Consulting, LLC All rights reserved.
  9. 9. Special Report Series | Coal: Closer Look at CCS (Part 3 of 3)The cost structure associated with the capture phase is through EOR can be sold, offsetting the cost of storagesplit between capital costs and operational costs at 60 and producing a profit. If oil prices are low, however, EORpercent and 40 percent respectively. 8 may not be profitable. The cost of storage in depleted oil and gas wells ranges from $0.5-12 per ton of carbonCCS: Sequestration dioxide injected. The cost for storage in onshore deep saline aquifers ranges from $0.2-5.1 per ton of carbonSequestration involves taking the compressed CO2 and dioxide injected, while the cost for storage in offshorestoring it for a geological timescale. Storage strategies for aquifers ranges from $0.5-30 per ton of carbon dioxideCO2 fall into three categories: geological, marine and injected.14mineral. Of these, geological is the most mature whilemineral sequestration is still in a research phase.11 For marine storage from a fixed pipeline, the cost rangesGeological storage sites include deep saline formations, from $5-30 per ton of carbon dioxide injected. This costoil/gas or unmineable coal beds (still in demonstration variability can be attributed to distance from the shorelinephase).12 There are considerable cost uncertainties with all and the differing depths and conditions at which theof these storage methods as none are currently performed injection needs to occur. For marine storage via ship, theat scale. Captured CO2 can also be used for EOR, as cost ranges from $12-16 per ton of carbon dioxidediscussed above. Storage costs are split between capital injected. The cost range for ship-based injection is smallerand operational investments: 80 percent of the cost of because costs do not increase with distance from thestorage is in capital; the remaining 20 percent is shoreline. 15 These costs are estimates based on researchassociated with ongoing operations, monitoring and phases of projects – a demonstration project using marinemaintenance.13 storage has yet to be implemented.EOR is the most mature of all of the storage technologies CCS: Current Projectsand its costs can range from -$99 (in the case of highlysuccessful EOR) to 67 per ton of carbon dioxide injected. United States:This is largely dependent on the market price of oil at thetime of extraction. If oil prices are high, the oil extracted In the US, there is currently no economic incentive for industry to capture carbon, as it adds additional cost. Sally8 Carbon Capture & Storage: Assessing the Economics. McKinsey & Company, McKinsey Benson, energy profession at Stanford elucidates this point:Climate Change Initiative. 22 Sept. 2008.11 www.ipcc.ch/pdf/special-reports/srccs/srccs_summaryforpolicymakers.pdf “Its really just a matter of money. If we had a price on12www.mckinseyquarterly.com/wrapper.aspx?ar=2247&story=true&url=http%3a%2f%2fwww.mc carbon that was $50 a metric ton, carbon capture andkinseyquarterly.com%2fWhat_is_carbon_capture_and_storage_2247%3fpagenum%3d1%23interactive_carbon_capture&pgn=whis08_exhibit13 Carbon Capture & Storage: Assessing the Economics. McKinsey & Company, McKinsey 14 www.ipcc.ch/pdf/special-reports/srccs/srccs_wholereport.pdfClimate Change Initiative. 22 Sept. 2008. 15 Ibid.8 www.zpryme.com | www.smartgridresearch.org Zpryme Smart Grid Insights | May 2012Copyright © 2012 Zpryme Research & Consulting, LLC All rights reserved.
  10. 10. Special Report Series | Coal: Closer Look at CCS (Part 3 of 3)storage would take off. But with no price on carbon in Globally:sight, companies can only sustain a certain amount ofinvestment. So really the impediment is creating the IEA predicts that by 2050, 10% of CO2 emission reductionincentive where people will pay that price for capturing related to energy will come from CCS globally.20 Manycarbon." 16 This could be changed by implementing an projects are currently operating that demonstrate theeconomic incentive for plants to reduce emissions, such as enormous potential of the CCS technology worldwide.a tax break or a fine for emissions above a certain level. Perhaps one of the most known CCS projects is theScientists from the Midwest Geological Sequestration Sleipner Project, off the coast of Norway, ongoing sinceConsortium, one of seven public-private partnerships 1996, where CO2 is being stored in an offshore salinecreated by the Department of Energy to promote CO2, formation. 12 million tons of CO2 have been stored toare currently injecting 1 million metric tons of CO2 into a date.21 The project has been successful in many regardssandstone site in Illinois, a project which will take a year (a due to the Norwegian carbon tax implemented 20 yearscoal plant on average emits 3 million metric tons of CO2 ago ($50 per metric ton).22 Injecting the CO2 offshore wasannually). The site has the potential to store 245.5 billion less expensive than paying the tax.metric tons.17 This project will provide us the best estimateof what sequestration will look like, practically, and is one In Alberta, Canada, $2 billion has been pledged to CCSof the largest CCS projects to date and the first in the US. over a 15 year period, beginning in 2008. This is the largestThe CO2 is coming from a nearby ethanol refinery and will amount a government has dedicated to CCS projects toarrive at the site via pipeline. date, and the project will store 4 million tons of CO2 by 2015 with a goal to store 140 metric tons by 2050.23 InEmissions from ethanol are comprised almost completely Saskatchewan, the world’s largest CCS project is housed inof CO2 so capture and compression costs are significantly Weyburn. The site will hold 20 million tons of CO2 used forlower than with a coal-fired plant. It will be stored 7,000 EOR when completed.24 This site is now providingfeet underground.18 The Illinois Basin – Decatur Project cost evidence as to the long-term storage capacity of CCS.is $96 billion dollars in total. There are currently 150 small- The site is now part of an $80 million internationalscale projects being carried out in the United States.19 monitoring project investigated to determine if the CO2 is 20 www.iea.org/papers/2011/costperf_ccs_powergen.pdf 21 news.stanford.edu/news/2011/december/benson-climate-change-120611.html 22 Ibid.16 news.stanford.edu/news/2011/december/benson-climate-change-120611.html 2317 www.carboncapturejournal.com/displaynews.php?NewsID=869 www.edmontonjournal.com/opinion/Thomson+Redford+dogged+carbon+capture+plan/57318 boingboing.net/2011/12/02/a-hole-in-the-ground.html 7238/story.html?cid=megadrop_story19 summitcountyvoice.com/2011/11/28/climate-large-scale-carbon-capture-tried-in-illinois/ 24 www.co2captureandstorage.info/project_specific.php?project_id=989 www.zpryme.com | www.smartgridresearch.org Zpryme Smart Grid Insights | May 2012Copyright © 2012 Zpryme Research & Consulting, LLC All rights reserved.
  11. 11. Special Report Series | Coal: Closer Look at CCS (Part 3 of 3)bubbling up – so far it has been deemed safe.25 However, provide additional cost savings. Finally, the cost ofit is difficult to predict over time if the CO2 will stay in sequestering the concentrated carbon dioxide is alsoplace. expensive, and although several sites have been identified for potential storage facilities, the number of approvedCCS: Bottom Line sites is still limited.Unless national or international efforts focus on creating a As more improvements in the processes and technologyprice on carbon, CCS is unlikely to be adopted in the near utilized through all parts of the CCS process advances,term. The Coal Industry itself is opposing the forced from the processing at the coal fired utility plants, toadoption of CCS technologies, as the cost of retrofitting transporting the gas to approved storage sites, the CCSthe currently operating coal facilities is prohibitive to technology will be more cost efficient, more readilyadoption. In fact, many facilities are citing these costs adopted, and utilized worldwide.(specifically the costs of achieving the required higheremissions standards) as the main reason for the plantclosures. Although new technologies are beingdeveloped to lower the cost of these improvements, theyhave not reached the point where they are affordableand offer a high return on investment in the short term.These costs are likely to be recouped over years, makingthem less attractive. However, its use in EOR may becomemore prevalent as the costs associated with coal increase.More pilot projects are necessary in order to understandthe long-term costs and potential health andenvironmental impacts of CCS.Currently, the Global CCS Institute lists 74 large scale CCSprojects currently being operating or in various stages ofdevelopment. These projects will set the pace anddevelop new technology as they advance. Additionally,the modes of transportation are also evolving from aninefficient system to a hub-based system, which will25www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-investor/cenovus-study-finds-co2-not-leaking-from-ground/article2254078/10 www.zpryme.com | www.smartgridresearch.org Zpryme Smart Grid Insights | May 2012Copyright © 2012 Zpryme Research & Consulting, LLC All rights reserved.
  12. 12. Special Report Series | Coal: Closer Look at CCS (Part 3 of 3) Q&A with Q&A: Dr. Raymond L. Orbach, CCS. Practically, it will mean that no new coal fired Energy Institute, University of power plant can be built, unless it has sufficient CCS capability. Texas at Austin 3. ZP: What environmental policy concerns are DR. RAYMOND L. ORBACH currently affecting CCS the most in the US? Director, Energy Institute Dr. Orbach: The cost of CCS is the greatest concern in University of Texas at Austin the U.S. It takes about a third of a power plant’s energy to capture CO2, making it uneconomical unless there isAbout Dr. Raymond L. Orbach: Created by the Energy Policy Act of an offset.2005, Raymond Lee Orbach was nominated by President Bush to serveas the first Under Secretary for Science at the U.S. Department of 4. ZP: What should the energy industry look forward toEnergy (DOE). On May 26, 2006, Dr. Orbach was unanimously from the University of Texas Energy Institute in 2012?confirmed by the U.S. Senate and sworn in as Under Secretary on June1, 2006. Dr. Orbach received his Bachelor of Science degree in Physicsfrom the California Institute of Technology in 1956. He received his Dr. Orbach: The Energy Institute is developing a processPh.D. degree in Physics from the University of California, Berkeley, in for sequestration that is much more efficient than1960 and was elected to Phi Beta Kappa. current technologies, and includes an energy offset that would substantially reduce the net cost of CCS. 1. ZP: What current technology trends are influencing CCS in the US? About: Energy Institute, University of Texas at Austin Dr. Orbach: The principal technological development is The Energy Institute at the University of Texas at Austin improvement of the “amine” liquids used to capture (http://energy.utexas.edu/) was created to address the CO2 from flue gas from coal fired power plants. This most challenging energy issues facing society today. Our development, led by Professor Gary Rochelle at UT mission is to provide guidance in the pursuit of a new Austin, operates at slightly higher temperatures, but energy paradigm that is at once viable and promises increased efficiency for CO2 capture. sustainable. The Institute’s overarching goal is to alter the trajectory of public discourse in a positive manner, as 2. ZP: What US regulatory and legal initiatives will have exemplified in our credo – good policy based on good the greatest impact on CCS in 2012/13? science. Dr. Orbach: The recent EPA rule on greenhouse gas emissions will have a profound effect on11 www.zpryme.com | www.smartgridresearch.org Zpryme Smart Grid Insights | May 2012Copyright © 2012 Zpryme Research & Consulting, LLC All rights reserved.
  13. 13. Special Report Series | Coal: Closer Look at CCS (Part 3 of 3)The Energy Institute’s formation is premised on the notionthat colleges and universities are uniquely positioned toconduct independent and impartial scientificresearch. This concept is illustrated in our approach toresearch, in which we assemble inter-disciplinary teams offaculty from schools and colleges across campus toaddress complex energy issues in a comprehensivemanner. Our aim is to inject science- and fact-basedanalysis into what is often a contentious dialogue, and inso doing bring clarity to the debate that shapes publicpolicy on energy issues.The Institute’s mission also includes the development ofinterdisciplinary certificate and degree programs in Zpryme Creditsenergy, to broaden the educational experience of Editor Managing Editor Research Leadstudents in this critical field of study. Megan Dean Samarth Bahl Stefan Trifonov Special Thanks To Dr. Raymond L. Orbach, Energy Institute, Director The University of Texas at Austin Disclaimer These materials and the information contained herein are provided by Zpryme Research & Consulting, LLC and are intended to provide general information on a particular subject or subjects and is not an exhaustive treatment of such subject(s). Accordingly, the information in these materials is not intended to constitute accounting, tax, legal, investment, consulting or other professional advice or services. The information is not intended to be relied upon as the sole basis for any decision which may affect you or your business. Before making any decision or taking any action that might affect your personal finances or business, you should consult a qualified professional adviser. These materials and the information contained herein is provided as is, and Zpryme Research & Consulting, LLC makes no express or implied representations or warranties regarding these materials and the information herein. Without limiting the foregoing, Zpryme Research & Consulting, LLC does not warrant that the materials or information contained herein will be error-free or will meet any particular criteria of performance or quality. Zpryme Research & Consulting, LLC expressly disclaims all implied warranties, including, without limitation, warranties of merchantability, title, fitness for a particular purpose, noninfringement, compatibility, security, and accuracy. Prediction of future events is inherently subject to both known and unknown risks, uncertainties and other factors that may cause actual results to vary materially. Your use of these and the information contained herein is at your own risk and you assume full responsibility and risk of loss resulting from the use thereof. Zpryme Research & Consulting, LLC will not be liable for any special, indirect, incidental, consequential, or punitive damages or any other damages whatsoever, whether in an action of contract, statute, tort (including, without limitation, negligence), or otherwise, relating to the use of these materials and the information contained herein.12 www.zpryme.com | www.smartgridresearch.org Zpryme Smart Grid Insights | May 2012Copyright © 2012 Zpryme Research & Consulting, LLC All rights reserved.
  14. 14. Special Report Series | Coal: Closer Look at CCS (Part 3 of 3)1 www.zpryme.com | www.smartgridresearch.org Zpryme Smart Grid Insights | May 2012Copyright © 2012 Zpryme Research & Consulting, LLC All rights reserved. Learn more @ www.zpryme.com | www.smartgridresearch.org